Paging Tom M. With a question

[paulzo]

Me: 5-10, about 150 lbs
my pack - for a week, about 30-35 lbs at the start, and lighter every day (thank god).
Typical day (if there is such a thing) - probably about 8-10 miles, and between 1000 and 2000 vertical up and same down.
If I was going to go back to places I've been, I'd really have little reason to change my gear. But if I want to get to some places that I have considered a bit above my pay grade, then I need to able to handle some steeper downhills unless I want to walk down.
And I realize that I will have to give something up in terms of travel efficiency, since I think the skis I have are damn close to the optimum as far as that goes. Their balance of grip and glide can't be beat, I think.

[Stephen]

Hi @paulzo
I tend to visualize things, and it seems like you are bumping up against limits all around.
Your pack is pretty light.
Your weight is right in the range (especially from the pics you posted).
You say your skis are 90% optimal.
You skills are on a plague (no judgment — just based on what you say).

It seems like if you want to explore more challenging terrain, you will either need to do more walking down, or make some concessions / compromises on the ski equipment.

Your boots seem pretty reasonable.
Like @jyw5 says, you could have more control with stiffer plastic boots.
I haven’t heard anyone suggest a better ski than the Voile Objective BC.
You could probably get more control with a different binding, but that would come with some additional weight.

If any of this is starting come into focus, you might restate your question based on what is starting to sound like an option and see what sort of response you get.
Your situation is somewhat unique on the forum.
Some people here have done polar / far north expeditions / traverses.
Here’s someone who did an interesting trip, but probably more exposed / extreme than what you do.
https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4099
https://mikesee.exposure.co/the-sawsalway
I think one person on this trip used Voile Objectives.

[fisheater]

I think limiting yourself to waxless skis is the limiting factor. I wouldn’t consider an air core Fischer ski. I think the Objective is a bit wide, I think tracking on hard snow is important. While I’m a flat lander from Michigan I have skied ungroomed wild Alpine terrain in several states over the course of a decade and a half including in the Sierra. I know what conditions are like. I wouldn’t buy a skimo ski. They are made for full length skins period. They are effective to ski down black diamond icy snow. Not as good as what else is available. @paulzo you are skiing 60 mm underfoot. I am not sure if you’re looking for a better planing ski??? That could justify an 86 mm underfoot foot Objective, but that ski cannot track well on hard snow, no freaking way. So I think you need to consider something between 60 mm and 86 mm underfoot. I know of two that have X-skin and real wood composite cores. Those are Asnes Rabb and Nosi. I have the new Falketind Xplore, those skis will be longitudinally stiff enough. I would get the Rabb and I certainly wouldn’t get it short, the Sierra generally have generously spaced tree. Long offers better float, better glide, and better edging. The rocker and side cut make the ski maneuverable. I think the Excursion is a great choice in a boot, allowing you to dry the liner in a sleeping bag overnight. Plastic Telemark boots are pretty comfortable. If you want more control I would suggest you take the cables out of your pack. Perhaps a 3 pin hard wire binding would offer even more control? Both Voile and Rottefella offer excellent 3 pin cable bindings with hard wires. That with plastic boots, a composite reinforced wood core, with a touch of rocker offer a lot of control.
I would not underestimate the importance of tracking on a long tour.

[lowangle al]

I would consider a short ultra vector. I think something in the 160s wouldnt be too much ski for Paul with his excursions. and they're light too

[Stephen]

@paulzo wants a traction base ski because enough of his traverse is rolling terrain to make a traction base the better option.
Fooling around with wax and kister in changing conditions when you’re trying to cover ground is silly. Plus killing the option for skins.
Fooling around with skins on smooth base skis for every little rise or dip is a waste of time and energy.
What he’s doing is an ideal use-case for a traction base.

The only thing he wants to improve is downhill control (as far as I remember), so he can explore more challenging terrain than he has with his current setup.

To get the control, he has to give up some tracking and motive efficiency.

It’s pretty simple.

The Ultra Vector is even wider than the Objective.
If the Objective would give him enough control, I can’t see much benefit to going wider, and I think it would be a less efficient ski.

I would love to hear what @paulzo thinks of all this advice he’s getting.

[lowangle al]

A 164 UV is 92 UF. At that length I think it would be doable, and it is less likely to fail than the objective.

[jyw5]

@paulzo wants a traction base ski because enough of his traverse is rolling terrain to make a traction base the better option.
Fooling around with wax and kister in changing conditions when you’re trying to cover ground is silly. Plus killing the option for skins.
Fooling around with skins on smooth base skis for every little rise or dip is a waste of time and energy.
What he’s doing is an ideal use-case for a traction base.

The only thing he wants to improve is downhill control (as far as I remember), so he can explore more challenging terrain than he has with his current setup.

To get the control, he has to give up some tracking and motive efficiency.

It’s pretty simple.

The Ultra Vector is even wider than the Objective.
If the Objective would give him enough control, I can’t see much benefit to going wider, and I think it would be a less efficient ski.

I would love to hear what @paulzo thinks of all this advice he’s getting.

good input. I suggested Ultra Vector BC white in another thread for someone looking for something similar...these do weigh more. the scales are great on long tours because skins can fail...and if/when they do, the scales are your backup until you get to a convenient spot to fix them. (I had that happen going down a narrow twisty icy section of a glacier with crevasses on both sides... stupid skin came undone on 1 ski. I pulled the skin off and resumed downhill...the scales provided some traction to help me slow my descent)

Ultravectors are the perfect width for downhill/uphill. these are alpine skis...no xc benefits. maybe what are OP needs. its a tough choice between UV and Objecives. For his weight and packweight, I would recommend 164cm UV BC white or 171cm Objective BC.

Binding and boot choice is difficult. More control with plastic boots for sure...but stiff and uncomfortable on flat sections. 1000 vertical for 8 miles is nice with leather boots and skinnier lighter skis. 2000 vert. for 8 miles is noticeably better with plastic boots and wider skis. so more specific details to make a final decision. and I'm assuming these are up/down stats... 1000ft-2000ft 4 miles uphill and 4 miles downhill, an even split between up and down.

btw, sometimes walking/hiking down or up is unavoidable. as you gradually get better, you can ski it. gear may not necessarily make you any better. its very difficult to ski with 30-35lbs ....so dont compare this with resort skiing.

[lowangle al]

What's up with the white UVs Joe? Aren't they the same spec and price as the ones with the standard top sheet?

Also, I find those wide alpine scaled skis very efficient for K&G. I had mine out yesterday and although they didn't glide as well as my skinny waxable XCDs or my kick waxed powder boards, the excellent kick made up for it. Since these skis are primarily made for AT bindings the scale pattern is tuned for getting a kick just through wait transfer from one ski to the other. There is no need for that little pop at the end of the kick to set the wax. If you do put that "pop" in, you go even faster, if you don't the saving in energy output is significant.

I also think that as counterintuitive as it sounds that the large surface area of the scales on wide skis makes them glide better and be more quiet. It may be due to less psi of pressure on the ski. I have no other explanation for why they glide so well.

As far as boot comfort goes, I have leather and plastic boots that are both comfortable. The problem I have is when I tighten them enough to get the downhill control I seek the leathers are way too tight and no longer comfortable. If you are not looking for so much downhill precision you can have a more comfortable fit.

Why aren't you skiing today, it's a meadow skippers dream out there right now. Is your shoulder OK?

[paulzo]

Intersting input. And still no real alternatives to the Objectives. I can't see going to a UV ; seems like from what I have to Ojectives is already a sizable change, going further would probably be too much. I'd be more likely to stop short of the Objectives If I saw something that was close but not quite, but I haven't heard of anything that quite fits that description, with the possible exception of some Asnes models, but I have ruled them out up to now given the reputation of their traction pattern. Still considering S-Bound 98, while the impression is firming up that that would be a much smaller step than to the Objectives.
I'm not thinking of changing boots. My excursions, with molded liners, are pretty comfy. Unless i decide to go TTS and use the F1 races that i have, boots and bindings will not change.

[lowangle al]

The reason I suggested the short UV is because I remembered an experience I had at a ski demo back in 2008. I was still pretty new to plastic boots, my widest ski was 70mmx185. Somehow, I ended up with the widest atomic ski they had at the time but it was short. It was probably 110- 115mm x160. It skied really well, almost too easy, but being a slow learner it didn't really fit my idea of what a ski should be.

Anyway, it's a big decision. Would you be happy if you could get it on edge enough to snowplow/wedge turn and maybe some side hilling?